PervetedJustice.com- Online Vigilanateeism for the 21st century

[Jac de Molay]

Slander is illegal, yes, and if they slander then they will be sued. However, they are completely with in their rights to tell the TRUTH.

The truth based on what??? The flimsy evidence of a chat log? The naive assumption that the person on the other end of the chat is actually who they say they are? Their methods of "verification" are absolutely weak, and sure as hell wouldn't stand up in court as evidence.

They AREN'T ENFORCING THE LAW! They are merely creating social repercussions, PURELY social repercussions, for certain actions, and it is not the GOVERNMENT's right to police that!

What the hell gives them the right to vilify people in public, and giving out personal info on them, based on ****ty evidence? Who the hell designated them the Officilal Pedophile Signifiers of the World? You have to be on some serious crack to think this is a responsible and legitimate method for rooting out pedophiles. Like someone said, it completely abrogates due process and the legitimate means of gathering evidence against criminals and building a case. Let the cops, not the self-proclaimed crusaders, do the work

Drogue:

If your friends decide to beat him up, or harass him, that is illegal. That is what this site is set up to do. It asks people to ring their numbers and harass them. If it provided the chatlogs, without anything else, it would be more acceptable, but with the consdierable bias and the incitement of harassment (sure, they ask people not to attack them, but ask people to phone and insult them).

Exactly Freedom of association doesn't entail inciting people to call up and harass people. I think I'm going to disguise myself as a 60-yr old pedophile , and give out my number as the white house or fbi hq just to piss em off.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Some of you really are naive about the pure intentions of people. It makes a person feel good to think that these evil people are being harrassed but you don't see the collaterial damage that these website operaters cause. They aren't answerable to anyone, they do as they please and that in of itself is a bad thing. That is the problem with people who take the law into their own hands. The "im going to save the world complex" usually causes more harm than good. Is it worth destroying and innocent life to embarass a few? No one here is defending pedophiles, but I'm just as afraid of people with agendas as I am pedophiles praying on children.

I agree, Sprayber. The "saving the world" attitude of this enterprise disturbed me as well. It's not much different from the mentality of some prison inmates who prey on other inmates who are convicted of e.g. sexually related offenses.

I think in most cases the vigilante attitude is more despicable than the people they're so nobly volunteering to harass.

[Dr Strangelove]

Just a couple of observations:
If the "1990" in "sugar and spicy_1990" is supposed to signify an age, then the girl would be only 13 years old, in which case a 19 year old having intercourse with her would be commiting a felony. I'd be in agreement with the law there.

There are a number of police departments which have active programs similar to this one, except that they arrange for a meeting between the decoy and the prevert, and then snatch the guy when he shows up. These guys should be co-operating with the local police rather than conducting an operation on their own.

[Whaleboy]

How is it not vigilantism? They're essentially doing things reserved for police task forces?

The paedo isnt being physically harmed, he is not being imprisoned. Any inconvenience caused to him is consequential of someone acting within their rights. It's like me writing an article opposed to say that celebrities, e.g. Mr X (named) are detrimental to this society. Sure its inconvenient to them, but its free speech!

he's done nothing strictly illegal, why is ruining his life legitimate?

Ruining his life, as said above, is not illegal either. You could say they are more or less equivalent. Say a slept with a mans wife, and he told my wife. Thats pretty much whats going on here. He wants to **** a young girl, I tell his wife, family, employers, friends etc.

I'm certainly not a legal expert, but I believe that if one of the accused requested that the site remove his contact information, the site would be forced to do so, or face civil or even criminal harassment charges. Am I wrong?

Logically, yes, but how many people would do that? That does not preclude the option of getting into private contact with the mans acquaintances either.

Jac and Drogue: Lets not forget the issue of free speech. Ideally, I should be able to incite to my hearts content, it is the actions of those who are idiotic enough to be incited that are at fault, and those who are responsible. As I have often said, its like blaming Plato for Hitler, Marx for Stalin.

Slander isn't protected speech. It would be real easy to completely demolish somebody's reputation on a site, and there would be pretty much nothing they could do about it after the damage was done.

Reputation's aren't something that are logically verifiable and are highly subjective. However, speaking within your context, one has as much right to defend it as another has to defame it.

Uh, no. Vigilantism is anyone who conducts the roles and responsibilities of police work above the law- patrolling the streets, etc. That's effectively what the site is doing.

No, vigilantism is "street justice". Its lynch mob, witch hunt, American unilateralist mentality. Its the imposition of one subjective over another. Without wanting to turn this into a debate on the Mill Limit, that is not the case here. It's merely free speech, which, in this case, is within the realms of that that is legitimately exercised by any individual. Of course that can be used negatively against another individual, but not that they cannot do the same in return. I reiterate, the paedos have fallen foul of the risk inherent to talking to somebody on the internet. Now there are a number of superficial problems with this site that I shall come onto later.

How do they know the "truth" is on their. They have a pretty flimsy basis for truth.

Granted, but to all it is fairly self-evident. As much as I'll hate myself later for saying it, use your common sense. Also, a website or individual can (and should where cant be able to) say what they like, about any person, where not subject to agreed regulations and limits.

Spreading information? For what? Surely you don't think that every person who receives this information will just sit on it? What about the context?

What people do with that info is down to them. If they decide to break the law, then they should be prepared for the consequences. I, for one, in no way condone violent acts or the like.

I have a problem with that site too. If it's not illegal, they shouldn't be naming and shaming them. Why not arrange to meet them at a hotel and have the police show up or something.

So its illegal to meet someone in public after meeting over the internet now? You need to consider that what is (logically?) legal and what is contrary to ones own morality are two different things. All this website is doing is acting on someones morality. I see no problem with that, had I the time or resources, I'd do the same .

That is what that site is doing, ruining peoples lives for something that is not illegal.

The like is done on a daily basis. Such is the nature of life and human relations. You cannot regulate a life where there is nothing but plain sailing. Life's a *****, and sometimes one feels that one must hold the whip (within the ML of course ). I reserve the right to ruin someones life.

If I patrol the streets and arrest people then I am a vigilante. If I patrol the streets and point at a person who I see stealing from someone else and shout "theif!", I am not.

The best analogy I have seen thus far on this thread.

I do agree that this will deter paedphiles. If they go to the police, instead of publishing their detail, as well as make a nationwide campaign telling that there is someone walking around the web, and catching paedophiles, the effect would be immense in the regard that it would probably diminish online molesters by hundreds of percents.

btw, interesting maths there

Sky: No-one is claiming the site's illegal. We're claiming it's morally reprehensible and that the people doing it are idiots. Can you defend their actions instead of just saying they have a right to do them?

If this site is legal, mine and Sky's argument is unchallenged. I can defend their actions, see my previous posts and utilitarianism .

If you publish his phone number, address, picture and tell people to call him and insult him, yes it should be banned. That's their private details. Telling someone such and such is a nasty person is fine. Posting their personal details with requests to harass them is not.

You put them up on a public chatroom, then they are public material. If it was a private conversation, then that is a breach of the ML, but I'll talk about the problems of this site in a sec.

They are enforcing their morals, not a law. That's my point. If they were enforcing a law it would be better. But their doing worse, their punishing people for something that isn't illegal.

They are encouraging their own particular moral view. Under a highly libertarian society, that is required in order to create cultural values, and I hope that it remains the case that ****ing little girls remains outside our cultural values.

There site states that wanting to sleep with young people is wrong. However it's not illegal. Neither is trying to. What is illegal is actually doing it.

Yep, so use legal means to counter them, i.e., what this site is doing minus the problems (I say legal here, I mean legal under the ML (see my website)). If they have, or are about to, do something illegal, get the police involved. Since they would not be able to get the police involved anyhow, because of the fact that a vulnerable child is not at risk (by taking any given action, they have protected one), the only way to combat the problem of such "evening paedos" is by some means used on this site.

Also, with the considerable bias that site uses, it could easily face a defamation or libel suit.

"Yes Mr Bloodsuckerlawyerperson, I'd like to defend my right to groom innocent young girls"

"Ok Mr Sickdirtypaedothatifiwasntsuchapeacefulguyiwouldbe atintoabloodypulp, you have the right, but your exercising of that right will lead to these legitimate consequences"

The truth based on what??? The flimsy evidence of a chat log? The naive assumption that the person on the other end of the chat is actually who they say they are? Their methods of "verification" are absolutely weak, and sure as hell wouldn't stand up in court as evidence.

Then since this is not a legal matter, rather a question of individual defaming individual (which is legal under most systems I am aware of, and my adopted philosophical system), such evidence is not required. You assume this site to be regarded as an objective source of truth, and while it may claim to be, the reader has the right to realise that it is a perfectly legal, unregulated operation. Whether they choose to exercise that right to find out is down to them.

What the hell gives them the right to vilify people in public, and giving out personal info on them, based on ****ty evidence?

The fact that they want to try to **** young girls perhaps? . Any information the paedo puts into the public domain (and to be perfectly honest, you are an idiot if you regard the internet as a private place nowadays), is public info. More on this...

Exactly Freedom of association doesn't entail inciting people to call up and harass people. I think I'm going to disguise myself as a 60-yr old pedophile , and give out my number as the white house or fbi hq just to piss em off.

You need to show that this is the case, rather than merely state it. It does mean freedom of association because there is no logical barrier to my right to meet people and communicate to whomever I want (whether they listen or not is a different matter of course, and not in their private domain), and the content and quantity of such communications. As I said before, I reserve my right to ruin someones life.

If the "1990" in "sugar and spicy_1990" is supposed to signify an age, then the girl would be only 13 years old, in which case a 19 year old having intercourse with her would be commiting a felony. I'd be in agreement with the law there.

There are a number of police departments which have active programs similar to this one, except that they arrange for a meeting between the decoy and the prevert, and then snatch the guy when he shows up. These guys should be co-operating with the local police rather than conducting an operation on their own.

Now for the problems of this site:

It gives too much information. IMO, all you should be able to give are peoples names and possibly photos. Any other would require a disclaimer (that it would be put in public), and though they can get around that, like sites like these teaming up with chatrooms, or them setting up their own forum with smallprint.

Naming and shaming is pushing it imo. Though I have no problem with it philosophically when it has limits on info to be given (using the same logic that justifies a certain level of surveillance or my right to look at someones face in the street), it is generally troublesome.

Some of the people cannot really be called paedos. Young adults, and mid-teenagers (i.e. 17-23 yo males and 14-16 yo females). Hardly paedophilic I think you'll agree. The common case of the <=12/13 yo and someone twice her age is a different matter. In terms of what they do, they need to be more scrupulous in this respect.

If information is put up without a disclaimer, and the person whom it concerns requests it to be pulled, it should be pulled, with an apology, and a statement that such and such a person requested that info to be pulled from public view. They should be obliged to with regards to private info, they should do other info out of manners imo, but of course, no harm to leave a sting in the tail .

Now for a private act between two people. The danger is that such a system can be used to expose homosexuals or bondagers. Neither of those breach the ML, and invasion of privacy required to obtain such info should be illegal. A young child who is mentally and physically unready and unprepared for sex, being abused, is a breach of ML in my opinion. It is hard to say that such is not legal. Obviously, during adolescence, the closer one gets to legal age of consent, the blurrier that becomes, so I suppose one should stick to that legal limit. A limit that is flawed in itself, but to explore that would be to take a trip into irrelevant land.

Nonetheless, in this matter, there are two participants. The paedo and the person leading him on. Since the disclosure is from the screen of one of the participants (and the words given to that person, presumably without copyright), is being put up by that person and, with their consent, by their representatives, I see no problem. If I say something to someone, in a letter, via the internet, on the phone etc, they are fine to quote me on it. One presumably does not copyright a conversation.

The method they use that is much harder to attack though, is finding out through legit means the acquaintances of the paedo, and informing them about his activities. Sure its ruining someones life, but it'd make great TV!! jk. Seriously, that would be most effective and one bypasses the debate surrounding naming and shaming in public, and while this site is generally ok, they are going about it haphazardly for my tastes. Nonetheless, I can forgive, the website creators obviously never read the Mill Limit!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
The paedo isnt being physically harmed, he is not being imprisoned. Any inconvenience caused to him is consequential of someone acting within their rights. It's like me writing an article opposed to say that celebrities, e.g. Mr X (named) are detrimental to this society. Sure its inconvenient to them, but its free speech!

If there's complete free speech, then there's no privacy laws? Publishing personal details about a person takes free speech way to far IMHO.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ruining his life, as said above, is not illegal either. You could say they are more or less equivalent. Say a slept with a mans wife, and he told my wife. Thats pretty much whats going on here. He wants to **** a young girl, I tell his wife, family, employers, friends etc.

Telling people to do illegal act to that person, such as harassment, is not just informing people. Also, the biased commentary could well be subject to a defamation suit.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Logically, yes, but how many people would do that?

Many, and most get refused:
from the faq:

How can I get you to take my information down?
A. Give us a damn good reason. As I related above, it is rare. Give us a damn good reason. And it better be damn good. Otherwise, we won't even entertain the thought.

Logically they should take it down? If you could do that, what would be the point, everyone would ask for that.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Jac and Drogue: Lets not forget the issue of free speech. Ideally, I should be able to incite to my hearts content,

Not in my ideals. Inciting illegal acts is, and should be, illegal. Free speech has limits in law, such as liber/slander, defamation, hate speech and incitement.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
As I have often said, its like blaming Plato for Hitler, Marx for Stalin.

No, it's like blaming Hitler, a man who told people to kill people, for the holocaust. They are telling people to commit a crime, much like Hilter told his the SS to. He was notorious for his lack of detail, so his instructions may have been more vague than those given by the site.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Reputation's aren't something that are logically verifiable and are highly subjective. However, speaking within your context, one has as much right to defend it as another has to defame it.

Legally, defamation and sladerous speech is illegal. Reputations are legally held, and damages can be awarded if one is trashed. They may not be tangible, but they are logically verifiable.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, vigilantism is "street justice". Its lynch mob, witch hunt, American unilateralist mentality. Its the imposition of one subjective over another.

Vigilantism is having someone impose their morals onto someone else, and punishing people who break them. That is the case here.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Of course that can be used negatively against another individual, but not that they cannot do the same in return.

You try to claim that with all things, which ignores any rights to privacy. If it's simply a case of you can publish anything about anyone, then no-one has a right to keep personal information private.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I reiterate, the paedos have fallen foul of the risk inherent to talking to somebody on the internet.

Why have thoses risks? Why can we not protect people's privacy?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Granted, but to all it is fairly self-evident. As much as I'll hate myself later for saying it, use your common sense.

You arguing for common sense? Only when it suits your case it seems. Have you looked at the site in detail? There are cases where the adult didn't mention sex at all, except the young person brought it up, and suggested it. And no it isn't self-evident. Many people roleplay. They have fantasies of being with someone younger, they want to (but then, we cannot control what we want, merely our actions) but they would not actually do it. They chat up young people as an outlet, but due to legalities and morals, would not actually go through with it. There is one case on there where the man asks to give the girl a massage. Nothing overtly sexual, except what the girl brings up without prompting. The comments simply go "yeh, like he justs wants that" when, due to their being weird people online, maybe he does, and maybe, as he says, he just has a fetish for giving massages. How can you show otherwise, let alone have any proof/evidence. Use your common sense is not a way to convict someone, and that is exactly what this site is doing, convicting someone of breaching their morals.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
What people do with that info is down to them. If they decide to break the law, then they should be prepared for the consequences. I, for one, in no way condone violent acts or the like.

The website does condone illegal activities. It actively condones harassment. Sure, if they put the chatlog up with anything else, you would have a point. But with biased commentary and requests to harass these people, they are guilty of incitiment. Whatever your (outspoken) personal beliefs, incitiment is a crime in many countries, certainly the UK, and the USA I believe too.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
So its illegal to meet someone in public after meeting over the internet now?

You claim that common sense is enough above, yet you now say that meeting someone, specifically for sexual contact, who is underage, does not consitute an illegal activity? Sure, the chatlog alone is not illegal, but actually going to meet them afterwards would imply going further. That is arguing against your common sense position above. However I do agree with you that they cann only arrest them after doing a illegal act, such as having sexual relations with a minor.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
All this website is doing is acting on someones morality.

As well as endorsing illegal activities. And it is convicting without due process or evidence, people of something which isn't even a law, and punishing them for it.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
The like is done on a daily basis. Such is the nature of life and human relations. You cannot regulate a life where there is nothing but plain sailing. Life's a *****, and sometimes one feels that one must hold the whip (within the ML of course ). I reserve the right to ruin someones life.

Then you are a nasty person, IMHO. Ruining someones life for something that, while against your own morals, is legal, is a nasty thing to do.

Originally posted by Whaleboy

If I patrol the streets and arrest people then I am a vigilante. If I patrol the streets and point at a person who I see stealing from someone else and shout "theif!", I am not.

The best analogy I have seen thus far on this thread.

Which doesn't hold up. Stealing is illegal. Pointing out someone has done something illegal is different to pointing out that someone has not done something illegal. Especially when the site portrays it as something that is illegal. Also, yelling, "thief" is in the heat of the moment. Putting up a website, giving the personal details of a person who stole something is very different. Lastly, since the activity is not illegal, it would be like posting details of someone who was found not guilty, or someone with a spent sentance. Thoise too, are illegal in this country. So, though it may simplify things, if analogies are based on their relevance to the case, that one isn't very good at all, and distorts it more than a little.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If this site is legal, mine and Sky's argument is unchallenged. I can defend their actions, see my previous posts and utilitarianism .

No, sky was arguing why they have a right to, and we were arguing why it was wrong. I'm also arguing that I don't think they have a right to. Your posts are very much challenged, that the site is invading their right to privacy, when they haven't committed a crime; it's publishing their personal details without consent, and not removing them when asked; It's punishing people for something that is not illegal; and it's not following due process, entrapment laws, or evening finding any decent evidence in many cases. They are moral problems with the site too. It is a hate site, with the primary and sole goal of destroying the lives of people who have committed no crime. Why can it not be prejudiced against people who like to roleplay about underage people the same way that a white supremacy site can be prejudiced against non-whites? Ill repeat: That site is a hate site, ruing peoples live's who've done nothing illegal. That is morally wrong, to me, whether or not it is legally challengable.

You're previous posts about utilitarianism? After your horrible corruption of Mill for his Limit, I dread to think what you've done with Utilitarianism

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You put them up on a public chatroom, then they are public material. If it was a private conversation, then that is a breach of the ML

Again showing you haven't read the site. These are not public chat messages, they are yahoo instant message conversations.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
They are encouraging their own particular moral view.

And punishing people that don't stick to it.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Under a highly libertarian society

Thank God we don't live in one.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
that is required in order to create cultural values, and I hope that it remains the case that ****ing little girls remains outside our cultural values.

These people have not ****ed little girls. They have chatted to them about sex, and illicited it. And they are not little girls, since almost all are 12-15 that I've seen, and mant of the men 18-19. While that may be socially unacceptable, with many nations have an age of consent of 12, and there being a growing movement in the UK to lower it to that (if you saw the Channel 4 documentary on it) it obviously isn't outside the realms of possibility. While I don't support the actions of many of the people portrayed on that site, I believe that sexual relations between consenting people should be legal, and I think that the ability to consent should come before 16. This isn't like NAMBLA. They're not 6-11 year olds. These are mostly teenagers.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
(I say legal here, I mean legal under the ML)

I don't, since I don't agree with the ML. And I hate that name, since I agree strongly with Mill when it comes to libertarianism and the law, and the ML is quite a way from that position. As you have admitted, Mill would agree with the Mill Limit, as you use it.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
"Yes Mr Bloodsuckerlawyerperson, I'd like to defend my right to groom innocent young girls"

No, i'd like to defend my right to free speech, my right to talk to someone who is willing (they can block or d/c if they don't want to talk) and most importantly, my right to privacy. Oh, and a hell of an appeal to emotion. I gave you more credit than that Especially when Liberals only use "logic and reason" while conservatives use "emotion and hate"

And you're saying someone is sick because they want something, because of desires they can't control? I don't agree with them acting on them, but these people haven't. However when they find themselves with those desires, what don they do? The same thing gay men did when that was illegal, and go underground? If they act on them, arrest them. But in this country, even convicted sex offenders have a right to privacy.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Then since this is not a legal matter, rather a question of individual defaming individual (which is legal under most systems I am aware of

Which ones? Have you never seen the hordes of defamation suits that get posted against newspapers here? Defamation and attacks on reputations are often met with lawsuits. Unless the reporting is purely factual, which with the commentary, is not the case.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
such evidence is not required.

If you want to defame someone, you better have some evidence, otherwise you'll end up with a nasty lawsuit.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
The fact that they want to try to **** young girls perhaps?

Nope, unless they act on this, it's not illegal. You cannot convict someone of something they want to do, just something they have done.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Any information the paedo puts into the public domain (and to be perfectly honest, you are an idiot if you regard the internet as a private place nowadays), is public info.

Not in a private chat. That's not the public domain, that's a conversation between two people.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You need to show that this is the case, rather than merely state it. It does mean freedom of association because there is no logical barrier to my right to meet people and communicate to whomever I want (whether they listen or not is a different matter of course, and not in their private domain), and the content and quantity of such communications. As I said before, I reserve my right to ruin someones life.

Harassment is illegal. Live with it.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If the "1990" in "sugar and spicy_1990" is supposed to signify an age, then the girl would be only 13 years old, in which case a 19 year old having intercourse with her would be commiting a felony. I'd be in agreement with the law there.

I would personally disagree, but since they haven't actually had sex with her, or even met her, they have not committed a crime.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
they can get around that, like sites like these teaming up with chatrooms, or them setting up their own forum with smallprint.

These are instant messages, not chatroom logs.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
They should be obliged to with regards to private info

Which they won't do.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Now for a private act between two people. The danger is that such a system can be used to expose homosexuals or bondagers. Neither of those breach the ML, and invasion of privacy required to obtain such info should be illegal. A young child who is mentally and physically unready and unprepared for sex, being abused, is a breach of ML in my opinion. It is hard to say that such is not legal. Obviously, during adolescence, the closer one gets to legal age of consent, the blurrier that becomes, so I suppose one should stick to that legal limit. A limit that is flawed in itself, but to explore that would be to take a trip into irrelevant land.

And if the age of consent is lowered? I would say a girl of 13/14 is able to make up her mind, considering her own maturity, and has had enough sex ed to be able to practice safe sex. IMHO, she is better able to decide if she is ready than a blanket law.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Nonetheless, in this matter, there are two participants. The paedo and the person leading him on. Since the disclosure is from the screen of one of the participants (and the words given to that person, presumably without copyright), is being put up by that person and, with their consent, by their representatives, I see no problem. If I say something to someone, in a letter, via the internet, on the phone etc, they are fine to quote me on it. One presumably does not copyright a conversation.

I disagree, because of right to privacy. However the only thing I take real issue with is the publication of personal details, especially when the person has made it clear they don't like giving it out, and that they want it kept private, but also when they haven't.

I'd like to point out that while I abhore what that website is and stands for, and the manner in which it does it, I do not at all agree with “****ing little girls”, as Whaleboy so eloquently put it. I just think if what those people are doing is illegal, then get the police involved. If not, it should be private.

[Whaleboy]

I refuse to answer that until Drogue has sorted his code out!

EDIT: Thats better

[Drogue]

Done

[Jac de Molay]

If they wanted to have a site where pedos who were actually convicted by law were listed, I wouldn't have a problem.

But they're the ones conferring guilt based on some pretty flimsy evidence, and evidence that can be easily fabricated at that.

[Drogue]

I agree with Jac, although I'd go further. Convicted paedo's are kept on a sex register in the UK, and publication of that has been stopped, due to legal reasons. Private details should remain private unless you give consent, IMHO. However I would settle for that being taken away from convicted criminals, with regards to their crime.

[Sprayber]

An irony to some of the responses in this thread is that some of the arguments used is this thread are the same ones used in a long ago thread about the NAMBLA website.

Does everyone who participated remember what position they took on that issue?

[Drogue]

My opinion was that NAMBLA's website went too far. My problem was that it insited a crime, paedophilia. And while I consider sexual relations with younger teenagers to be a grey area, with under 10s I think it is paedophilia. However I did advocate less strong charges for having consenting, loving sexual relations with a minor as opposed to rape of a minor.

However I would also be against a site that's aim was to name and shame NAMBLA members.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


This was to be my point. While I think pedophiles actively seeking sex with underage people get what they deserve, the potential for abuse in an unregulated vigilantee environment is too great.

ditto -- I agree

[Whaleboy]

Privacy:

Your own home is your domain. Any information you place in public, from public forums like this one, is subject to scrutiny. This of course can lead to problems such as heavy surveillance, but one hopes that such info will be used wisely. It is very easy to attack collection of info on a very large scale, like surveillance, but an operation consisting of a few people poses no problem to me!! .

Complete free speech does not mean no privacy. That is a strawman. However, the Mill Limit extends to ones front door. It is an element of that system that is more or less implemented today, though technology has yet to catch up, and political wisdom to meet it .

Telling people to do something illegal:

To blame the person telling is to belittle the power of the individual to decide for themselves. Beat up person X, smoke this, etc etc. The criminal is the person that pulls the punch, not the inciter. Nonetheless, I am opposed to violence as you know, and to my knowledge, this site does not encourage violent acts. Show me where I am wrong.

Logically they should take it down? If you could do that, what would be the point, everyone would ask for that.

Which is why they should only put up legitimate information, names, perhaps a face. As this is within ML (public info), it is the perogative of the person owning the website whether or not it stays up there.

Not in my ideals. Inciting illegal acts is, and should be, illegal. Free speech has limits in law, such as liber/slander, defamation, hate speech and incitement.

But I find your ideals to be logically inconsistent, subjective, conceptually unworkable and almost... I cant bring myself to say it, such is the nature of this evil... Kantian!!! Again, see my above point. The criminals are the people that commit the crime. Remember about influence?

No, it's like blaming Hitler, a man who told people to kill people, for the holocaust. They are telling people to commit a crime, much like Hilter told his the SS to. He was notorious for his lack of detail, so his instructions may have been more vague than those given by the site.

Hitler was vague, the people under him came up with his plans, which he approved. In terms of a political system, if, as is the case with Nazi Germany (obey or die, obey or there are bad material consequences), you can show that there is a positive link between ones words and anothers actions, then the commander is guilty for the actions of the subordinate acting under his orders. That is simply not the case in a free society where speech is open for critical analysis. I am not compelled to agree with anything, even in this society!

Legally, defamation and sladerous speech is illegal. Reputations are legally held, and damages can be awarded if one is trashed. They may not be tangible, but they are logically verifiable.

Another flaw in our legal system. I cannot see how a reputation, which is the sum and aggregation of perceptions of ones experiences and those around one, can be a logical or legal entity, where a negative force such as that on this site would merely subtract from it. Like I said, life's a *****. It's full of ups and downs, and it is not for the legal system or government to legislate an easy ride. For the third time, I reserve my right to ruin another's life. I just don't happen to use it! So I'm not a nasty person IYVHO.

Vigilantism is having someone impose their morals onto someone else, and punishing people who break them. That is the case here.

Nope, thats parenthood . See above for problems with your definition of punishment. Vigilantism is the description I gave above. A witch hunt.

Source: The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers:

vigilantism [?v?d??'lænt?z?m]
noun (U.S.) the methods, conduct, attitudes, etc., associated with vigilantes, esp. militancy, bigotry, or suspiciousness

A description of the witch hunt mentality methinks.

You try to claim that with all things, which ignores any rights to privacy. If it's simply a case of you can publish anything about anyone, then no-one has a right to keep personal information private.

A strawman. That is not the case as you well know. The ML specifically describes the notion of privacy, and I dare say, does so more consistently than any other method I can fathom.

Why have thoses risks? Why can we not protect people's privacy?

You go on the internet, you take risks. You meet someone in ANY public place, they may not be who they say they are. Its as simple as that. They have the right to disguise their identity, and use the text you give them (without copyright) on your screen, to their own ends.

You arguing for common sense? Only when it suits your case it seems.

This is a debate, not the House of Commons. Grow up!

Have you looked at the site in detail?

Indeedy!

With regards to the rest of that paragraph, they state that they put up the information when they take it further, i.e., meet up on the premise of sex. What I said was on the validity of the text in question, presumably, whether or not the online conversations were fabricated. Thats a tough one that would require external verification. One example would be a montage of screen shots or independent verification, but for that organisation/individual, they are perfectly fine to put up a conversation or its summary, on their own website. There are no requirements of truth for ones own website (ignoring the issue of libel, but I have dealt with that issue, it is a fallacy). Again, its down to the reader whether or not they choose to believe it.

The website does condone illegal activities. It actively condones harassment. Sure, if they put the chatlog up with anything else, you would have a point. But with biased commentary

Hence a small problem with that website. While I believe that harassment is a poor excuse for a crime and highly subjective, it is irresponsible of the website to recommend it. See my recommendations for changes to the public information given on that site.

As for biased commentary, I fail to see the problem for someone analysing a conversation and giving their opinion. Yes the website is anti-paedo. Dum dee dum.

You claim that common sense is enough above

I'm not even going to bother counting the strawmen. Common sense is sufficient for verification of the truth. It is blatently obvious that this was the context in which that was spoken and not referring to the rest of the debate, nor as a consistent philosophy to be used throughout.

As well as endorsing illegal activities. And it is convicting without due process or evidence, people of something which isn't even a law, and punishing them for it.

A minor error, easily rectified. My position on the website and its methods stand.

Then you are a nasty person, IMHO. Ruining someone's life for something that, while against your own morals, is legal, is a nasty thing to do.

I wouldn't do it on a common basis, however, if someone I knew was partaking in these activities, and worse seeking to **** children, then I would gladly expose them, because the risk to children is far greater than his reputation. Speaking in the context of the public domain, you do something I don't like, I do something you don't like. When its legal and within my morals of course.

Which doesn't hold up. Stealing is illegal.

He was using a metaphor, using the thief to represent someone doing something he didn't approve of. For example, me screaming "Fascist" at someone in the street (which I have done before in my more reckless days )

Your posts are very much challenged, that the site is invading their right to privacy, when they haven't committed a crime

And as I have shown, it is fallacious to say that a notion of privacy has been breached when all information is public domain. That does not preclude the faults in the website, which as you know, I do not defend.

It's punishing people for something that is not illegal

Punishing them in terms of something that the law should at least recognise (though the law is too subjective at this stage, hence my problem with libel and reputation), it is not. Making their life suck, yes. We all do that to others on a daily basis. C'est la vie. Its countering them, an eye for an eye admittedly but perfectly legitimate, and as its in the public domain, and due to the horrific nature of what they have done, I have no problem with it. Of course I would rather they refer these people (as I recommended they do to their families/friends/workmates), to a psychiatrist as well so these ill people get fixed of this shocking disposition.

They are moral problems with the site too. It is a hate site, with the primary and sole goal of destroying the lives of people who have committed no crime. Why can it not be prejudiced against people who like to roleplay about underage people the same way that a white supremacy site can be prejudiced against non-whites? Ill repeat: That site is a hate site, ruing peoples live's who've done nothing illegal. That is morally wrong, to me, whether or not it is legally challengable.

Your morality, not mine. Ruining someone's reputation, for the most part (on the personal level), isn't really a crime, and in terms of my philosophy, it certainly shouldn't be. In terms of MY morality, they may not have done something illegal, but they have done something wrong. I am acting within the legitimate bounds of my morality by taking such measures against them, with the revisions I have specified. While we are in this realm of legal and logical clarity, and not committing a crime (thus I am ok to be within my subjective), I consider it a positive act on my part to protect children at risk from this man. I doubt he would visit a chatroom and practice his grooming after being stung like this. An interesting divergence: How else would you have these paedos dealt with?

You're previous posts about utilitarianism? After your horrible corruption of Mill for his Limit, I dread to think what you've done with Utilitarianism

You should indeed . You might call it Relative Utilitarianism. I'm conducting a one-man war against the ghost of Mill. At least his essay "On the subjugation of Women" was something of a redeeming factor.

Again showing you haven't read the site. These are not public chat messages, they are yahoo instant message conversations.

I know, I was attempting to apply this to a wider context. Nonetheless, it makes no difference. Even with IM, you type something on screen and don't copyright it, its mine to do whatever I want with. Free text.

And punishing people that don't stick to it.

As previously stated, your fallacious use of the word "punishment" is... fallacious

Thank God we don't live in one.

No, it would make it so much harder to IMPOSE as opposed to my arguments of influence your subjective moral view on others... and we couldn't be having that could we? . That God for relativism and logic!

These people have not ****ed little girls.

Read my post. The concept of such a thing is outside of our cultural values. Perhaps I should edit to make it clearer. Nonetheless, for all intents and purposes, have they not demonstrated their desire to by continuing that conversation? If that doesn't make them a risk, I don't know what does. And since they have done nothing illegal, I can think of no better way of dealing with them than respecting their innocence but running a train over their reputation, whose neck they have placed over the tracks by engaging in that conversation in the first place.

They have chatted to them about sex, and illicited it

And exchanged information on the almost-certain premise that they are to meet up, on the almost-certain premise of sex, or attempted sex on his part.

And they are not little girls, since almost all are 12-15 that I've seen

12-13 counts as little girls to me. I would consider them no more ready for sex, for the most part, than someone of the ages 7 or 8. My current self-imposed limit is 16, though I have gone younger when I was 15/16 (I am 18 now).

I don't, since I don't agree with the ML. And I hate that name, since I agree strongly with Mill when it comes to libertarianism and the law, and the ML is quite a way from that position. As you have admitted, Mill would agree with the Mill Limit, as you use it.

While I know that you don't agree with it, it is symptomatic of my view that I cannot help but express when in such a debate. Thus you must accept that when debating with my position, you are debating with the Mill Limit, and the reasoning thereof. Remember the mountain of assumptions and the comparative nature of the debate?

No, i'd like to defend my right to free speech, my right to talk to someone who is willing (they can block or d/c if they don't want to talk) and most importantly, my right to privacy.

For the umpteenth time, that right is not in question, as I initially said. It is my right to legally and within the bounds of subjectivity (influence, not inhibit), exact a consequence that is in question. Its a more extreme version of someone writing an article I disagree with, me writing one back.

Liberals only use "logic and reason" while conservatives use "emotion and hate"

Great! You're using Oerdins strawman in your own! . My points have been made with logic to back them up and sufficient refutation of opposing views. As a writer, one cannot merely rely on logic to get your view across, and the human mind does not work that way. If we communicated solely by logic, philosophical debates would be conducted in algebra. Fortunately, the emotional dexterity of language is a more appropriate tool for adjective, example and convincing.

And you're saying someone is sick because they want something, because of desires they can't control? I don't agree with them acting on them, but these people haven't. However when they find themselves with those desires, what don they do? The same thing gay men did when that was illegal, and go underground? If they act on them, arrest them. But in this country, even convicted sex offenders have a right to privacy.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you comparing paedophiles to homosexuals? If so, I am duly offended. Whether or not paedos can control their desires is questionable but irrelevant. IMO, if they cannot, they should be locked up and or treated for mental disorder, but moving the relationship forward to the point of meeting up (the sting as I understand it), would seem to bely an intent of moving the relationship into a corporeal state.

Which ones? Have you never seen the hordes of defamation suits that get posted against newspapers here? Defamation and attacks on reputations are often met with lawsuits. Unless the reporting is purely factual, which with the commentary, is not the case.

Person A: B said I was a paedophile
Person B: He is a paedophile and I have the online conversations etc to demonstrate
Policeman: Bugger off, I have real work to do.

Libel is idiocy!

Harassment is illegal. Live with it.

That sounds like a challenge jk. All very well saying it is illegal, but what is the basis for that? I respect only laws that I concur with, and or have consequences to their breaking that I cant be bothered dealing with.

I would personally disagree, but since they haven't actually had sex with her, or even met her, they have not committed a crime.

And if they had, they should have called the police. I concur that he did not commit a crime. If I were running the website, with my revisions, I would be committing none by taking action against him. Again its not vigilantism, its prudent citizenship.

These are instant messages, not chatroom logs.

They must have surely met on a chatroom, IM systems work by contacts, a random person cannot add you unless you give our your email address, which for a system like this website, would be too laborious, hit and miss, and give "slim pickings" to search.

And if the age of consent is lowered? I would say a girl of 13/14 is able to make up her mind, considering her own maturity, and has had enough sex ed to be able to practice safe sex. IMHO, she is better able to decide if she is ready than a blanket law.

Different for each individual I guess. I consider anything below 14 to be too young imo. I would not go younger than 16. How a system of age of consent should be constructed? I'll leave that to pragmatists. You rightly say that a blanket measure is flawed.

However the only thing I take real issue with is the publication of personal details, especially when the person has made it clear they don't like giving it out, and that they want it kept private, but also when they haven't.

If you dont like giving out information, dont give it out! If you give it out and dont copyright it, be prepared for such a thing to happen. Its a risk one takes. I could bring Huxley into this, but I'll spare you .

I'd like to point out that while I abhore what that website is and stands for, and the manner in which it does it, I do not at all agree with "****ing little girls", as Whaleboy so eloquently put it. I just think if what those people are doing is illegal, then get the police involved. If not, it should be private.

It seems that your argument is based on the assumptions that the conversations are private and that it should be illegal to ruin someones reputation. If I have not sufficiently dealt with those assumptions, let me know!

Sprayber: I have no philosophical objection to that site, only a more subjective moral objection. (If this is the paedophile advocacy site I think it is). Needless to say, I'd be perfectly happy bringing that website to the attention of the family members, coworkers and friends of those who set it up!

EDIT: Can't sleep

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
The truth based on what??? The flimsy evidence of a chat log? The naive assumption that the person on the other end of the chat is actually who they say they are? Their methods of "verification" are absolutely weak, and sure as hell wouldn't stand up in court as evidence.

The chat log itself is pretty good evidence that they had the chat

What the hell gives them the right to vilify people in public

Freedom of speech. Ever heard of it?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sprayber
An irony to some of the responses in this thread is that some of the arguments used is this thread are the same ones used in a long ago thread about the NAMBLA website.

Does everyone who participated remember what position they took on that issue?

Yes. My position was that as long as they weren't inciting acts of paedophelia, it was ok. In terms of rights and freedoms, AFAIK elijah and I are in agreement.